Originally Posted by
MM56
Can you point me towards some form of documentation that says this is not true, and that I am misinformed?
If this was in fact the FTC rule, why on earth would any for profit blog post "advertisement" or "sponsored" on every post that is being paid for by a sponsor? Why wouldn't they just put a disclaimer somewhere on their site and leave it be, drawing attention away from the fact that they are advertising. Today, Gizmodo posted this, a sponsored post and clearly labeled it so.
http://tinyurl.com/crf44nk
You know what--you
might be right. I've tried to find some newer FTC guidelines that would prove you wrong, and I have actually found them--to the detriment of my own argument.
This
blog states that FTC made some
revisions (concerning bloggers in Para(s) 255.1, example 5 and 255.5, example 7) in May 2012. This is how the blogger interprets them:
1. The FTC can fine both the blogger and the company for not disclosing an arrangement where the company compensates the blogger for a review, positive mention, or sponsored post. Wouldn’t that be a bummer, to not mention your arrangement in the post and then find it costs you a new client? So not worth it.
First, let’s define an “arrangement.” According to the FTC, compensation happens when you:
Receive a free product and review it
Link to the product’s website and receive a commission (called an affiliate program)
Receive money, product or services for posting about a product
Review a product or service that comes from an advertiser on your site...
2. The definition of “disclosure” is more specific. It’s not enough to make a general disclosure on your About page anymore. The discloser must be contained in the post itself. “So long as the disclosure clearly and conspicuously conveys to the reader the relationship between the blogger and the advertiser, the disclosure will be adequate,” states the article. That means you can write something as simple as, “Company ABC gave me this product to review” and you’re done."
By the way that's an interesting article there. Good read.
Now, unlike this blogger, I didn't find a single use of the word "affiliate" in the FTC document, but I think that the spirit of those rules does include them. It would be very interesting to hear from some attorneys (and I know we have plenty of them on this forum) what their take is on it.
Don't think this ruling would be a tragedy for honest bloggers who don't intentionally push lame ducks while there is a better offer out there, but I think it's gonna be a pain to accompany every single affiliate link with that disclosure. Or maybe not.
Anyway... my bad
